If democracy is better than federalism, why doesn’t that apply to the legislative branch as well as the executive? Why not direct democracy?
Update
I think there’s a great misconception about democracy, one that’s held even by learned political scientists. The virtue of democracy is not that it’s fair. Democracy isn’t fair. That would only be the case if every individual’s utility were identical and that’s at the very least unprovable and quite likely not to be the case.
The proof of that is illustrated in comments. If one half plus one of the people vote to eat the rest, is that fair? Obviously not.
No, the virtue of democracy is buy in. Democracy increases legitimacy because participation encourages buy in.
Fairness isn’t conveyed through democracy but by the rule of law. Everyone has the same opportunity to understand the rules.
I think it’s clear that people. while legally equal, do not all have good judgment, and benefit from selecting qualified leaders, also only human, therefore checked by constitutional “checks and balances”.
I have heard some folks believe, with modern technology, all legislation could be subject to direct democracy, and wouldn’t that be fair?
I’m sure everyone here has heard before the old saw that in a pure democracy, half the population could vote to eat the other half.
New fear, we could end up with a Kardashian in the White House.
That doesn’t happen in Switzerland which has about as close as you can get to a direct democracy. All legislation of any real consequence is subject to a binding referendum.
Our problem now is that neither our legislators nor executives are qualified except in the purely technical constitutional sense. Legislators consistently vote their own interests rather than those of their constituents. The executive isn’t being checked. Elective office has become a path to fame and fortune.
All True
All True, but Switzerland Is a special case, lacking the “diversity” we enjoy. In a direct democracy, Nebraska becomes irrelevant. Native Americans could have no champions, being run over by sheer numbers. Thinking as I do, I believe even THEY will survive if our constitution continues to guarantee property rights, and the right to bear arms. If the new administration decided to cut off all forms of federal assistance to the Tribes for financial reasons or just indifference, the result would be a dramatically lowered life expectancy, but we would still survive, breeding earlier and more often and passing on at younger ages.
Switzerland has more diversity than you might think. It has four different official languages (German, French, Italian, and Romansch), each spoken in a different area of the country. The four areas are culturally different, too.
The French area is quite Protestant (arguably the birthplace of the Protestant Revolt). The German, Italian, and Romansch areas are among the most Catholic in Europe.
What the Swiss hold in common are a commitment to Swiss independence and the belief that they have an individual right to determine what happens to them.
So, Dave, you recommend what? I’m not trolling, just thought you were leading up to something? True direct democracy at all levels?
Most don’t even pay enough attention for direct democracy, others , begin to gel their beliefs around their environment, not taking any other opinion into consideration. I myself, drive a truck, If you get tired of oldies, you tune in talk radio, Rush, Hannity, repetitive, yes. But the central theme is that Liberal politicians and their media whores are trying to get you to give up your constitutional rights for an offer of security if you give them political power.
WE all know that’s wrong, politicians feel our pain and care deeply for us. If you don’t buy THAT, listen more to N P R.
Going long, here in Lincoln, someone spray painted the capital building, Sam’s Club and other places with these words:
Trump= Racism and Rickets=Racism ( he’s our Governor)
I would have to say that the HATERS they like to disparage are now all on the Left.
Democracy is so great we should elect supreme court judges. Actually we could save a lot of time and money if we just skipped elections and relied on polling, which is mostly accurate.
In answer to your question, Gray Shambler, this post is a reaction to the remarks I’ve been reading about popular votes and the unfairness of the electoral college. IMO as long as the electoral college is perceived to be fair and the rules with respect to it were in place when the election started it is fair. If it’s not perceived to be fair the process of changing it should have begun a couple of years ago.
Musing about how much fairer strict majoritarianism would be, IMO a dubious proposition, at this juncture isn’t idle speculation but undermining the foundations of the republic, intentionally or not. Let it rest for a few months for goodness sake.
As to what we should do I think that federalism is a good, workable system for a country as large and diverse, both demographically and geographically, as the United States. Representative democracy still potentially has the virtues that Madison and Hamilton attributed to it.
We should return to a system of senators appointed by the state governments. The present senate is not only redundant but disruptive. It upsets the balance of our federal system as designed. As GS noted above, the electorate needs to be more engaged. I think that devolution is one of the steps necessary for that but probably inadequate in isolation.
I also think that endorsing a tyranny of 700 counties over the other 2,300 is no different in concept from supporting a tyranny of one county over 2,999. Or, said another way, The Hunger Games.
As was pointed out more than 2,500 years ago the most vital force in a republic must be a commitment to compromise. I don’t think a republic can survive without it. Compromise is not only impossible but objectionable if you consider people who disagree with you to be morally reprehensible and intolerable. The only alternatives are tyranny or divorce.
Andy:
A perceptive example.
Also, about voters even paying attention, 1n 1776 only white men with property were allowed to vote, no women, Jews, Quakers, Blacks, indentured servants, Native Americans.
A very select group with common interests who probably knew or knew of each other
The electorate has changed completely since that time.
That brings up another interesting point. Just over half of the eligible voters cast votes in the last election. Is that fair? Maybe we should be like New Zealand and impose fines for not voting. Would that be fair?
Also, there are counting errors of various kinds in every election. .2% is far below the margin of error. That means that we don’t really know who got the highest number of popular votes. It’s not possible to determine that. IMO registering complaints because of something that’s indeterminate is just mischievous. The election’s over. Move on.
“Musing about how much fairer strict majoritarianism would be, IMO a dubious proposition, at this juncture isn’t idle speculation but undermining the foundations of the republic, intentionally or not. Let it rest for a few months for goodness sake.”
That was exactly my thoughts and I even drafted a similar comment to Dr. Taylor at OTB but decided against posting it.